academic acceleration (2shb 1642)

advertisement
September 2015
ACADEMIC ACCELERATION (2SHB 1642)
1. Purpose: To promote dual credit programs and eliminate barriers that prevent students from
enrolling, the Legislature passed Second Substitute House Bill 1642 (2SHB 1642) on May 8, 2013.
The resulting laws (RCW 28A.320.195 and RCW 28A.320.196) encourage and reward school
districts to develop academic acceleration policies with the objective for all eligible students
eventually to be enrolled automatically in dual credit courses.
A. RCW 28A.320.195 (Academic acceleration for high school students – Adoption of policy)
encourages each school district to adopt an academic acceleration policy where students who
meet state standards on the high school state assessments are automatically enrolled in the
next most rigorous advanced courses with the objective that they will ultimately enroll in dual
credit opportunities. Such policy also provides for the school district to inform parents and
students of this policy, as well as permitting parents with an opportunity to opt out and enroll
the student in alternative courses.
B. RCW 28A.320.196 (Academic acceleration incentive program – Dual credit courses – Allocation
of funds – Reports) requires OSPI to create and manage 2 equally funded academic
acceleration competitive as well as incentive grant programs.
1.
The purpose of the Dual Credit Expansion Competitive Grants package is to encourage high
schools to develop new capacity for dual credit courses.
2. The purpose of the Dual Credit incentive program is to allocate funds to Washington high
schools based on the successful participation of their students within dual credit programs,
excluding Running Start, over the previous year.
These funds are intended to support teacher training, curriculum, exam fees, and other costs of
dual credit courses.
C. RCW 28A. 300. 560 (Data on college credit through dual credit courses – Posting on website)
requires OSPI to build out its School Report Card to include dual credit exam-pass rates and
college credits awarded.
D. RCW 28A.320.196 (Academic acceleration incentive program – Dual credit courses – Allocation
of funds – Reports) requires OSPI to report to the Legislature in January of each year on the
demographics of students earning dual credits in the schools receiving academic acceleration
grants or awards.
2.
Description of services provided:
A. OSPI, consulting with the Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA), identified
early October as the posting date for the first round of Dual Credit Capacity Expansion
Competitive Grants. This was based on WSSDA’s timeline to prepare and post an Academic
Acceleration policy (#2195) for use by school districts that would need to adopt such a policy.
OSPI issued Memorandum No. 036-13M—High School Academic Acceleration/Dual Credit
1
Programs on August 29, 2013, describing the enacted legislation as well as to provide advanced
notice to school districts on an early fall launch of a Dual Credit Capacity Expansion. To be
eligible, a school district must have adopted an academic acceleration policy.
B. OSPI developed, posted, and managed a state competitive grant application three separate
times during 2013–14, promoting the obvious benefits of this academic acceleration
opportunity and its benefits to students through multiple OSPI memorandums, regional and
statewide professional development opportunities, as well as guidance and counseling
e-newsletters and listservs. These one-time grants for high schools were intended to assist them
in expanding the availability of dual credit courses.
C. OSPI calculated and assigned, through its apportionment services, funds for each student who
earned dual credit in specified dual credit courses offered by a high school in the previous year
(2012–13). This was assigned in the June, 2014 apportionment distribution (Attachment 1 –
Academic Acceleration 2013 – 14) to school districts. The amount of the award for low income
students was calculated at 125 percent of the base amount which was set at $9.92. Each student
was counted once, even if he/she had earned more than one credit. The award was assigned to
the high school that generated it. The funds were intended to be used to support teacher
training, curriculum, exam fees, and other costs of dual credit courses.
The awards were based upon the number of students who:
1. earned a score of 3 or higher on an AP exam
2. earned a score of four or higher on an IB exam
3. successfully completed a Cambridge Advanced International Certificate of Education exam
4. earned college credit through a College in the High School course; or
5. earned a college credit through a Tech prep course
Online dual credit courses counted as being offered by the high school if the high school offered
them at no charge to the student. Enrollment in Running Start did not count toward an award.
D. OSPI submitted its initial report to the legislature (Dual Credit Demographic Data among
Academic Acceleration Grantees 2014), outlining baseline dual credit data for each of the
grantees. In addition, the strategies proposed by each grantee were identified within the
following categories:
1. Evidence-based decision making
2. Barrier reduction
3. Student support
4. Work plan goals
OSPI will be submitting results of the grantees 1st year of implementation under the competitive
grants in its annual report, due to the legislature in January, 2015. Preliminary dual credit
enrollment data for 2013–14 will become available to OSPI program staff in late October, based
on historical CEDARS submissions practices of school districts.
E. OSPI Information Technology Department is working with our Student Information team, and
OFM / ERDC to expand the Dual Credit section within the State Report Card to report student
success in dual credit programs. This effort requires reliable and accurate data from multiple
sources, public and proprietary. The process to identify the success indicators values, was
piloted with the academic acceleration incentive awards granted last spring to high schools
throughout the state and was based on unduplicated student counts. OSPI Student Information
is working with ERDC to refine the College in the High School reporting process, as well as to
reconcile the Running Start data collections in CEDARS with the community and technical
2
colleges and public university student information systems. With successful completion of these
tasks, OSPI will then finalize Report Card development and add the performance data to the
Dual Credit reports.
3.
Beneficiaries in 2014–15 School Year:
A. Competitive grants were awarded to the following
# of school districts: 13
# of high schools:
13
# of students: 9,631
B. Incentive Grants were awarded to the following
# of school districts: 189
# of high schools: 337
4.
FY 15 Funding:
5.
Are Federal or other funds contingent on state funding? If yes, explain.
No
6.
First year funded: 2014
7.
State funding , number of beneficiaries, # services since inception:
Fiscal
Year
FY15
FY14
8.
State Appropriation:
FTE’s
# of School
Districts
13
17
Amount
$1,061,000
$1,110,000
$1,061,000
1.15
# of Students
# of School’s
9,631
23,934
13
29
Average and range of funding per beneficiary, 2013–14 school year:
A. Competitive grants—Range of awards: $1900 to $10,000 (based on school enrollment)
Average grant award: $6046
B. Incentive grants—Range of awards: $9.92 (multiple sites) to $8,283.18 (Interlake High
School/Bellevue School District), based on a $XX.XX per student formula
Average grant award: $1,409.50
9.
Evaluations of program/major findings:
A. WSSDA has created and posted an academic acceleration school board policy template that
incorporates the elements outlined in RCW 28A.320.195 (Academic acceleration for high school
students – Adoption of policy)
B. First year findings will be submitted to the legislature in the annual report required by RCW
28A.320.196 (Academic acceleration incentive program – Dual credit courses – Allocation of
funds – Reports), due on January 1, 2015.
10.
Major challenges faced by the program:
A. Although the competitive iGrants application have been offered to districts multiple times in
2014-15, only 13 districts and 13 high schools have applied. Primary reason for rejection of
other applications has been the lack of school board academic acceleration policies, consistent
3
with the four requirements outlined in RCW 28A.320.195 (Academic acceleration for high
school students – Adoption of policy)
B. A second challenge is the linking of competitive grant amount to the high school enrollment.
The weighting assigned in the Fiscal note (1642 2SHB AMS EDU S2311.2 – H.S. academic
acceleration) for this legislation was based on the assumption that schools with more than 550
students would receive the maximum award of $10,000. Schools with less than 80 students
would receive the minimum award at $1,900. Schools with enrollments between 81 and 549
will receive awards proportional to their enrollment. The $1900 base was based on the
estimate for the start-up cost to initiate an Advanced Placement class. This base amount was
identified by some, initially interested in applying, as not of sufficient amount to do the work
necessary to build, execute, and sustain a dual credit expansion plan of action.
11.
Statutory and/or Budget language:
Budget Proviso ESSB 6052 Sec 1510 (21), page 490: $1,110,000 of the general fund—state
appropriation for fiscal year 2014 and $1,061,000 of the general fund—state appropriation for fiscal
year 2015 are provided solely for chapter 184, Laws of 2013 (2SHB 1642). Of the amount
appropriated in this section, forty nine thousand is provided as one-time funding.
12.
Other relevant information:
4
Download